Ehring Mortgage & Securities Co. v. Druggan

*39OPINION

By HORNBECK, J.

It is claimed by the defendant that on the staté of the pleadings the plaintiff was not entitled, upon its theory, to offer testimony tending to meet the case adduced by the defendant upon cross-examination of Mr. Ehring, because the defense of the plaintiff was that of fraud. We do not so interpret the defense asserted. It is true that it was based upon a scheme, but if it had been accomplished as contended by plaintiff it would have defrauded no one, but would have accomplished only the prompt payment by the debtor of an obligation which was owing to defendant. It did…